Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2021/03
i disagree with special:diff/530590799, because not all votes are elections. for example, a board of governors making decisions by voting can adopt a voting system, which sounds odd if called an electoral system. voting is a superset of elections. RZuo (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- To clarify, RobLa has proposed moving Category:Voting systems to Category:Electoral systems following wikipedia's article at en:Electoral systems and category at en:Category:Electoral systems. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
No consensus to move, kept as-is. Elli (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Commons is not your personal photo album. Quakewoody (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Quakewoody: What is that "your"? CfD is not intended to address one particular person, but for discussion of the community, regardless of who uploaded the image or who created the category. Categories are intended to group files related to the same item. Deleting a category is only possible if there is no content in it and there is no reason to expect to use it in the future. If 5 photos of the same person are uploaded in the project, then it makes sense to group them into one category.
- In the case of a proposal to delete individual images, the usability of such images for the purposes of the project should decide. This usability may result either from the significance of the person depicted or from the usability of another aspect of the image. Both of these aspects can be discussed. During a quick googling, it seems that this person is not completely unknown and has some publicity in his country. As for the theme of the photos, a photo of a diver with a turtle or a photo of a man getting out of a small helicopter can be in scope, even if the depict a completely unknown anonymous person, regardless of who and why uploaded these photos to the project.
- P.S.: It seems a bit suspicious to me that someone who has not even set up his own user page in this project (and systematically deleting discussions on his personal discussion page, and having just 1 his own upload file) is systematically involved in deletion proposals in this way. What can be his experience with the categorization system and project scope? --ŠJů (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I did not mean to imply that you were at fault or did anything wrong. But, the uploader and his cross wiki promotional material did cause you to create a seemingly legitimate category. However, in the process of thoroughness, the category should be purged with the rest of the material.
- And, just to note - what does my editing history have to do with the discussion? Quakewoody (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Firstly, can everyone please remember to adopt a civil tone and discuss the key issue of the category title without criticizing other users? That's not that CFD is about.
- Second, since there are currently no images in this category, it's hard for me to understand what's going on. Did someone remove them from the category or have they been deleted? If there is no content that currently fits here, we can delete the category and recreate it in the future if legitimate content is uploaded. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- And, just to note - what does my editing history have to do with the discussion? Quakewoody (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Quakewoody and Themightyquill: It seems that all the 5 images (listed here) were deleted by a process of quick deletion, ie as a "revenge" for the uploader's aggressive and and parasitic self-promotion, without careful consideration of whether the person depicted is publicly known and whether the theme and composition of the photos (person sitting in a small helicopter, a diver swimming next to a turtle, etc.) can be of some benefit to the project. We have many similar images with anonymous divers or anonymous pilots, which no one proposes to delete. Is revenge for self-promotion a sufficient reason? As regards the person depicted, he is obviously pushing for his self-promotion, however, thanks to this, it is not completely anonymous and is traceable in public space ([1]). Is it appropriate to delete such images in a quick delete process without proper discussion? In general, it is welcome that people also contribute to the project with pictures of their city, village, region, workplace, or from their field of work or hobby. There is always a degree of "self-promotion" in this, and we need to consider whether such images can have any value for others.
- The personal level plays only a factual role here: just as it is suspicious if someone contributes to the project only once on one topic in which he has his personal interest, it is equally suspicious if someone who has a minimum of uploads and a short editing history, is too involved in deleting content. I'm not sure if such an "interproject annihilation stalking" is what should be tolerated in the Commons project. The benefits of images should be judged regardless of who uploaded them and why. --ŠJů (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted as empty. The category can be recreated if the images are undeleted or re-uploaded. User complaints can be lodged at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Non-educational, potentially harmful. Page was created by someone blatantly pro-anorexia trying to promote the illness. Ms-Isabel (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Categories are there to organize content, not to advocate certain positions, and certainly not to "inspire" people to embrace a harmful disorder. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete It looks like this is related to the creation of the article of the same name on fr.wp. Here is a short squib about the banning of the tag on Instagram in 2012. Research suggests this was not entirely effective. SashiRolls (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Noting for the record: I'm aware that this process is backlogged and these thing ccan take months and months to be actioned. That being the case, given the unanimity of responses so far, I've removed the three images from this category. If somehow it ends up being kept they can simply be added back by checking my edit history for this date. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Move this to Latin transcription. E4024 (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- For the strange name one cannot even help the categorization. Are all these images about one building or what? Commons is a collective enterprise; we should at least be able to read the letters. (This is why I made the cat Category:Mercimek soup and not "Mercimek çorbası": This way everybody knows it is about a soup.) Please help from Armenian-native users. --E4024 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Done.Tozina (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Moved to Category:Armenian churches in Naxçıvan. Closed. --E4024 (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a duplicate of Category:Lukáš Dvořák. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- There's a DAB on Wikipedia so we should probably move Category:Lukáš Dvořák to Category:Lukáš Dvořák (photographer) and create a DAB there and redirect this title there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: redirected. Until we get some photos of Lukas Dvorak the footballer, there is no need for a disambig page. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I think this and all other "Category:Photography by ..." cats should be moved to "Category:Photographs by ..." to help harmonization. E4024 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: redirected. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This is an empty category SecretName101 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted as per nom. --rimshottalk 22:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this should be moved to Category:Mid Ulster. It would match the English name and the district council website uses Mid Ulster without a dash. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- No problem for me. Most probably when I created it, 5 years ago, it was styled Mid-Ulster. -- Blackcat (write me here) 23:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Closed and moved to Mid Ulster per nominator. -- Blackcat (write me here) 23:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
This category links to en:Category:Cities in Hawaii which states that "Honolulu is the only city in Hawaii". At least some of the populated places in Hawaii categorized here as "cities and towns in Hawaii" are categorized under en:Category:Census-designated places in Hawaii on wikipedia and under Category:Census-designated places in Hawaii here. We have no Category:Villages in Hawaii either. I would suggest we delete this category, and merge the subcategories to "Populated places in Hawai" (e.g. Category:Cities and towns in Lanai would become Category:Populated places in Lanai). -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes maybe delete the Wikipedia category or perhaps rename this to Category:Cities in Hawaii if it is an exception to w:WP:SMALLCAT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- The subcategories were all created buy Howcheng and Reykholt. Are you okay with moving them to "Populated places in X"? (or, now that I think of it, maybe "Populated places on X" since they're all islands?)- Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- In a legal sense, Honolulu is the only city (technically it's a city–county), but in everyday parlance other CDPs are called cities. See for example, "The best city or town in Hawaii", "Big Island Towns" ("Hilo is the county seat and the only major city on the island's windward coast"), and "New report says the happiest city in Hawaii is ... Pearl City!" (note that Pearl City is not actually a city). So with that mind, I think the categories are fine the way they are. —howcheng {chat} 02:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- The subcategories were all created buy Howcheng and Reykholt. Are you okay with moving them to "Populated places in X"? (or, now that I think of it, maybe "Populated places on X" since they're all islands?)- Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: Is there any reason not to move to "populated places" like the rest of commons? Surely there are some places small enough in Hawaii that they are not referred to as cities. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- The standard for U.S. states is "Cities and towns in [state]". Granted, those are actually incorporated cities and towns, but it seems to me that Hawaii should follow the same pattern, otherwise it's not particularly user-friendly to have this state be different simply because these aren't de jure cities. —howcheng {chat} 00:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: I don't see any other "Cities and towns in [state]" categories, so I'm not sure how that is the standard. It is not very user friendly to have a category name unique to Hawaii. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- My mistake, it's "Cities in [state]", and it appears that Category:Cities in Hawaii is a soft redirect. I'd be happy with making Hawaii match the other states. —howcheng {chat} 06:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Populated places in Hawaii and Category:Cities in Hawaii. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Empty Category....Relevance? DerDeutscheFotograf (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Please redirect this category to the already existing category of "Category:Fennagh, County Carlow" as both categories are about the exact same place (based on the category that this category is linked to). There are also other Fennaghs elsewhere is Ireland so maybe this category could be replaced with some type of disambiguation page so that others wouldn't be confused. Thanks in advance. 109.76.67.102 21:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: disambig'd. --Achim (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
One last thing, can you also do the same to "Category:Fenagh" (with one "n")? I know the category doesn't exist yet but it might be useful as the Fenagh in County Leitrim uses that spelling. Once again, thanks in advance. --109.76.67.102 23:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Done. --Achim (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Erroneous, correct category (already existing) is"Comet (ship, 1812)", to which all content has been moved. There was no steam ship "Comet" launched or completed in 1811. Davidships (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- I did not come to the deletion page until after editing the categories in the individual files. Sorry if this was out of order. Davidships (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirected. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete all this work? That is what the previous discussion seems to suggest and I strongly disagree. At least one of the categories I created here, Film locations of Crooked House (2017), has already disappeared completely without any warning. A lot of research went into it and for someone else to just throw it away, I find this very disrespectfull. Judithcomm (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the entire cat tree.
- yes delete all. otherwise locations like these would have endless categories https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/most-used-filming-locations-world .
- an alternative, better way for this info should be the other way around:
- location XYZ (e.g. Category:Grand Central Terminal)
- cat:Films set in Grand Central Terminal
- Film A
- Film B
- ...
- cat:Films set in Grand Central Terminal
- location XYZ (e.g. Category:Grand Central Terminal)
- this way it's more manageable, since i guess very few films are set in lots of different locations.--RZuo (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- "very few films are set in lots of different locations"? If you think that, you don't know much about film. A simple Poirot episode can be filmed in 12 different locations. But if it has to be changed, I insist that no cat should be deleted until the information it contains has been secured in another way.--Judithcomm (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- 12 is not a lot, but only a dozen. maybe you dont know much about english.--RZuo (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Turning the categorisation around would created a similar problem. Some films would have a huge list of 'Films set in' categories. And in Wikipedia Category:Films_set_in_London now has 2,393 members. But if this is the way to go, I would prefer to use 'Films filmed in', because 'set in' is ambiguous. Witness for the Prosecution (1957 film), for example is listed as 'set in London', but was not filmed on any London location. And many spaghettiwesterns are listed as 'set in the US', but are filmed mostly in Spain. --Judithcomm (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- 12 is not a lot, but only a dozen. maybe you dont know much about english.--RZuo (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- "very few films are set in lots of different locations"? If you think that, you don't know much about film. A simple Poirot episode can be filmed in 12 different locations. But if it has to be changed, I insist that no cat should be deleted until the information it contains has been secured in another way.--Judithcomm (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- See also special:permalink/547051826#Film_locations. (^o^)--RZuo (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- No mention of deleting the entire cat, though.--Judithcomm (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- I saw an example like "Category:Film locations of 10 Things I Hate About You" and honestly think that this isn't that bad as it is relevant to the film and would make finding images to use when writing about film locations. Couldn't this entire category tree be turned into" Hidden categories"? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've seen a lot of discussion about this on commons and the general consensus is clearly against keeping these categories. I don't see any reason why galleries are an insufficient alternative. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would gladly create galleries - already started - but I need the info in the categories for this. So that's why I'm asking not to delete them before the gallery is created. What's more: If a place being a film location is not an attribute that defines it, how about Category:Collections by museum? The location of a work of art in a museum does not define it either (unless it's controversial, like stolen ancient Egyptian art). It can be moved to another museum without changing where it's made, what it's made of, what it looks like, what culture it belongs to, who made it and when, etc. Shouldn't this whole cat tree be deleted as well?--Judithcomm (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Judithcomm: If you're really okay with galleries and you are moving in that direction, why are you still arguing to keep these as they are? If you want to open a discussion about deleting Category:Collections by museum, please go ahead. Once you complete a gallery, please nominate the related category for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- No I'm not really ok with deleting locations categories, but I don't want to lose all the work I've done either. I was trying to make a point, that's all. And I just spent several days categorizing images of the gorgeous works of art in Patan Museum in Nepal, so no, I see value in collecting them that way and will never nominate Collections by museum for deletion.--Judithcomm (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Judithcomm: If you're really okay with galleries and you are moving in that direction, why are you still arguing to keep these as they are? If you want to open a discussion about deleting Category:Collections by museum, please go ahead. Once you complete a gallery, please nominate the related category for deletion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would gladly create galleries - already started - but I need the info in the categories for this. So that's why I'm asking not to delete them before the gallery is created. What's more: If a place being a film location is not an attribute that defines it, how about Category:Collections by museum? The location of a work of art in a museum does not define it either (unless it's controversial, like stolen ancient Egyptian art). It can be moved to another museum without changing where it's made, what it's made of, what it looks like, what culture it belongs to, who made it and when, etc. Shouldn't this whole cat tree be deleted as well?--Judithcomm (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I see that in spite of my request, more locations cats of mine have been deleted. There were galleries there, but I would have liked to make a backup of the list of locations. Is it really to much to ask to let the creator of a locations cat decide when it is deleted? I am doing my best to complete the gallery pages and secure the info in the cats, but this takes time. Please respect the work I've done and don't force me to do it twice --Judithcomm (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Judithcomm: I'm not nominating anything for deletion, much less deleting them, but I might suggest you focus your attention away from the Patan Museum and toward your locations categories if they are being deleted. That said, some patience should be expected from others. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Some content here is really not helpful and could easily be deleted:
- Who needs a two categories to tell them that the Sphinx in Gallipoli was the Sphinx? Or that the statue of liberty in Tom and Jerry was the statue of liberty?
- Category:Film locations of Gallipoli (1981) in Egypt
- Category:Film locations of Gallipoli (1981)
- Category:Film locations of Tom and Jerry
- These categories all have a single subcategory for a general community, not a specific house or beach where filming took place. As such, it's possible that none of the images in these subcategories would even be recognizable from the film.
- Category:Film locations of Murder in Three Acts (1986)
- Category:Film locations of See Spot Run
- Category:Film locations of Ned Kelly (1970)
- Category:Film locations of Mystery Road (2013)
- Category:Film locations of The Nugget
- Category:Film locations of Pete's Dragon (2016)
- Category:Film locations of Rams (2020)
- Category:Film locations of Ride Like a Girl
- Category:Film locations of Scooby-Doo
- Category:Film locations of Shock Treatment (1973)
- Category:Film locations of Slow West
- Thank goodness this method wasn't applied to Category:New York or Category:Los Angeles. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: The "Murder in three acts" was one of mine; I nominated that now. The others I don't know. Sometimes it does make sense to identify or exclude a well known location as a film location. One Agatha Christie film I know of was filmed entirely in a studio, but the sets are so realistic, that one could have sworn it was filmed on location in London. The remake WAS filmed in London on those same locations. --Judithcomm (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep. It is not really helpful to delete all or some film location categories. For me – and many other people – informations about these places are of absorbing interest. Entire books have been written about film locations and many of them are very important in the local tourism industry. Often they are visitor attractions. So it seems a little bit silly to ignore it here. J.-H. Janßen (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I will add the locations gallery pages to this cat, so at least the info doesn't get lost.--Judithcomm (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Closing as delete most per my previous close here. Categories are for defining characteristics - the fundamental information about an item, including the source(s) of its notability. In the vast majority of circumstances, use as a film location is usually not a defining characteristic of a location. A famous location may be used in dozens or even hundreds of productions; it would be ridiculous and counterproductive to list them all, as it would inhibit use of the category system on those categories for defining characteristics. Categorization of filming locations under a media should be reserved for the few locations where substantial changes made for filming are visible (like Category:Onk Jmel), where the location is only notable for its filming use (like Category:"Home Alone" house), or where a defining feature of the location in the cultural consciousness is its use in certain media (like Category:Rocky Steps). Otherwise, locations should be listed on the article about the production and/or on Wikidata using P915, both of which allow for the needed citations.
I will hold off on deleting subcategories until the end of May to allow for those interested to move the information to appropriate locations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This category is a redundant and repetitive fork/offshoot of Category:Pulilan Regional Road (and encourages redundancy). The creator of this repetitive and superfluous category has been notified before of proper categorization (at User talk:Judgefloro/Archive 1#Balara Filters Park (Nature And Wildlife) and User talk:Judgefloro/Archive 3#Category cycling). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: all 192 photos have been moved to Category:Pulilan Regional Road. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: empty category now - deleted. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Another superfluous category encouraging redundancy: all five files have been moved to Category:Odonata on hands. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Please delete, it was named wrong. 5snake5 (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. @5snake5: . We all make mistakes - no need for discussion. Next time, use {{bad name|Category:Bad Sooden-Allendorf}} - Themightyquill (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Category for a YouTube channel with < 2k subscribers. The category was populated by the creator and none of the files have any indication of CC licensing or COM:EDUSE. Seems promotional to me. BriefEdits (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. Wikidata item also nominated for deletion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Baixo do Pinda to avoid confusion with es:Pinda (Category:Pinda (Apiaceae)) -- Themightyquill (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Pinda is a place on itself (the main place there, if I'm not mistaken). If you agree with it, we can move it to Category:Pinda (Mozambique), and close this discussion. What do you think?-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: I couldn't find any place named Pinda either on a map or by googling. But if you're sure, I'll defer to you. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: I am sure - there are plenty of sources for that. Then the place gave the name to the other related places (Baixo do Pinda, baía do Pinda, Porto do Pinda, etc.)-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: I couldn't find any place named Pinda either on a map or by googling. But if you're sure, I'll defer to you. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Support EN has this as a DAB and there are plenty of other places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Pinda, Mozambique which matches other peers in Category:Populated places in Nampula Province. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Diese Kategory wurde von mir versehentlich unter dem falschen Namen erstellt (statt Naturdenkmal Krefeld ND 12) Ich bitte um Löschung, da diese Kategorie leer ist. Rolf Simon (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted, author request. --rimshottalk 19:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Empty category. Station was demolished so long ago that I doubt there are any good-quality photos of the station that could be added here. 192.196.218.210 18:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- It was empty after Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Oanabay04; I suspect the image we had was of the former site. No objection to deletion; we can always re-create it if there's an appropriate image. Mackensen (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as empty category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This cat can now be deleted Judithcomm (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is for Category:Vintage images of King's Lynn and West Norfolk District and all sub categories.
Do we really need / want "vintagexxxx" categories for images? I dont think so. GeorgHH • talk 16:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need Category:Vintage images or any subcategories at all. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe change these categories from Vintage to Historical as there is already a Category:Historical images by country Kolforn (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to "Historical images" which is equally bad in my opinion, but at least more universal for the moment. -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Category:Pulilan-Calumpit, Bulacan Road (Calumpit) public transport in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic
[edit]Unnecessary, and redundant to Category:Pulilan Regional Road during the COVID-19 pandemic. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also, Category:Pulilan-Calumpit, Bulacan Road (Calumpit section) will become empty if this is deleted. If the decision is delete, please delete that as well. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
A number of categories within Category:Dog types:
- move Category:Dog hybrids → Category:Dog crossbreeds – "Dog hybrid" suggests it is a hybrid between two species
- move Category:Dog hybrids by parentage → Category:Dog crossbreeds by parentage – per above
- move all of the subordinate categories of Category:Dog hybrids by parentage, substituting the word "hybrids" with "crossbreeds"
- move Category:Bulldog breeds → Category:Bulldog type – not restricted to specific breeds but allows what is in fact the contents
- move Category:Bull-type Terriers → Category:Bull-type terriers – unnecessary capitalisation
- as well as subordinate Category:Bull-type Terriers in art
- move Category:Cur (dogs) → Category:Curs – unnecessary disambiguation
- move Category:Herding Breeds → Category:Herding dogs – more specific and corrects errant capitalisation
- move Category:Hound → Category:Hounds – plural form is both correct and consistent with other dog types
- move Category:Mastiff → Category:Mastiffs – as above
- move Category:Pointing breed → Category:Pointing dogs – more specific
- move Category:Scenthound → Category:Scent hounds – plural form is both correct and consistent with other dog types and typically it is written as two words
- merge Category:Toy breeds into Category:Toy type dogs and delete the former – duplicate and the latter is specific.
Cavalryman (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support moves & merger. These categories appear to have been established at a time when there was an effort to establish the dog breeds on the wiki projects. With the passage of time, these are no longer appropriate titles and a wider scope for each category should now be established. William Harris (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to William Harris as I have added some additional categories with this edit. Cavalryman (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC).
Closing discussion myself as it appears to be completely uncontroversial. Result was move all per nomination. Cavalryman (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC).
- Post-closure comment → Category:Toy dogs has an already established purpose, which is for images of man-made, dog-like toys, so Category:Toy breeds has been moved to Category:Toy type dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC).
If Molossus is an extinct dog breed how come this actual one a subcat of something which is extinct? E4024 (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Second question: How come it has no other cats? Do people have to find the cat of an actual (living) dog breed through an extinct breed? This is not "good categorization". Some people may know more about dogs, but here there are also people who know cats (not the enemy of dogs). --E4024 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello E4024, there is no living dog breed called the "Molosser", I am unsure where you got that impression. As is described at w:Molossus (dog)#Modern kennel club classification, the terms "molosser" or "molossoid" are used by some kennel clubs to group the very much distinct (and unrelated by domestic dog standards) livestock guardian breeds and mastiff breeds. The term is derived from the Molossus, although there is no actual evidence connecting these dogs to those dogs of the ancient Molossians, hence the categorisation. Cavalryman (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC).
- I believe it is a category that could be deleted. William Harris (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, upon reflection it serves no great purpose, it only confuses. Cavalryman (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC).
The result of the discussion was delete. Cavalryman (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC).
Move to Category:Public Universal Friend ? Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would support that; "Public Universal Friend" is the name used by (most of) the Wikipedia articles and the name the subject was notable under and preferred. (In most RS, both names are found.) -sche (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support for moving the category to "Public Universal Friend" as the subject rejected their birth-assigned name. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Public Universal Friend Themightyquill (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
We have no other "Specific people" cat. Will we now have to make a "Category:Specific people" in our categorization scheme? E4024 (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Let's merge this into Category:Deaths from COVID-19, in fact it is already full of "specific people who have died with COVID-19" (sic). --E4024 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK. I have changed my mind. Let's get rid of this category. Normally, I like more specificity and granularity in categories. But as Túrelio pointed out; Category:Deaths from COVID-19 by country is not using "specific people" cats. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe the creator meant this to be a "by name" type of category. I don't see the value in separating the categories of people who've died of the virus from individual images of people who don't have their own category. In any case, I agree that "specific people" is not a good term to use in a category name. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am the creator of the category, and had no problem with individual images and subcategories being in it. But I now believe that the costs outweigh the benefits of keeping this category. See my previous reply.
- Support. Feel free to move everything now to Category:Deaths from COVID-19 and Category:Deaths from COVID-19 by country. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom otherwise we could have "Specific people from London" etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Using Cat-a-lot I moved all the images and categories to Category:Deaths from COVID-19. Since I am the one that originally moved them out of there, I took the liberty to move them back. From what I am reading above, I don't think anybody disagrees. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Category was deleted by Wdwd on 09:14, 23. Mär. 2021. GeorgHH • talk 17:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
A needless duplicate of Category:San Isidro Labrador Parish Church of Pulilan - Interior, which is simpler and uses common name. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundant / excessive category. All content have been moved to Category:San Isidro Labrador Parish Church of Pulilan. Those images in the category showing the old façade before the renovation/restoration have been moved to Category:San Isidro Labrador Parish Church of Pulilan (pre-2019), so there's no need for this unnecessary category. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundant and unnecessary fork of Category:Candaba Viaduct. All images have been moved to the original category. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Redundant fork: all files have been moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (San Simon, Pampanga segment) and Category:North Luzon Expressway (San Fernando, Pampanga segment). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: by P199. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category of an unnotable subject. Its sole occupants — 4 files — have been moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (Angeles–Mexico, Pampanga segment) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category of an unnotable subject. Its sole occupants — 2 files — have been moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (Angeles–Mexico, Pampanga segment). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary fork of Category:San Simon Interchange, NLEx. All files have been moved here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category of an unnotable subject. Its sole occupants: 3 images, have been moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (Apalit segment) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category of an unnotable subject. Its sole file is now moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (Angeles–Mexico, Pampanga segment) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Category of an unremarkable overpass/subject. Its only contents, two files, have been moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (San Fernando, Pampanga segment) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This category is redundant to both Category:Tabe I Overpass (NLEx, Guiguinto) and Category:Tabe II Overpass (NLEx, Guiguinto). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This category is redundant to both Category:Tabe I Overpass (NLEx, Guiguinto) and Category:Tabe II Overpass (NLEx, Guiguinto). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessaey fork of Category:North Luzon Expressway (Guiguinto segment) that encourages/attracts redundancy and excessive images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- All files have been moved to Category:North Luzon Expressway (Guiguinto segment). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
A needless duplicate of Category:San Isidro Labrador Parish Church of Pulilan, which is simpler and uses common name. Common names are generally preferred over official designations (the official designation is mentioned in the brief description of the original category). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: Deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
We have Category:Cities in Malaysia and Category:Towns in Malaysia, but there's no need to combine them in this state. Redirect to Category:Populated places in Perak. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support or maybe rename to Category:Towns in Perak to split like Wikipedia though a villages category exists a cities one doesn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Is Category:Marrupa, Mozambique redundant with Category:Marrupa? Themightyquill (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes it seems so. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was merge, in favour of Category:Marrupa Estopedist1 (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Category without files Mannivu · ✉ 12:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- There's already 1 file. 182.29.25.44 07:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can we close this now? -SteveCof00 (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The result was keep. The nominated category is populated Estopedist1 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Populated places in Tierra del Fuego to match category tree (and to include villages). -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support though the Wikipedia category is at this title that probably needs renaming. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Neutral @Themightyquill and Crouch, Swale: "cities and towns"-scheme is widely used in enwiki (see eg en:Category:Cities in Europe by country). Should Commons take the other direction?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: Commons has taken another direction. There are very few like this. --- Themightyquill (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Populated places in Tierra del Fuego. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Category:ESL already exists. Pbrks (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Generally, I should think that any three letter acronym should be a disambiguation page. en:ESL is about something else, so I'd suggest converting ESL to a disambig page. But the topic here is listed as en:ESL (company) on wikipedia, not "e-sport". - Themightyquill (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agree @Pbrks and Themightyquill: ESL to disambiguation page, and solution per enwiki; Category:ESL (e-sport) to be renamed to Category:ESL (company)--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:ESL (company) and converted Category:ESL to a disambig page. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to Category:Unidentified jazz saxophonists? I'm sure they have names. Themightyquill (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just merge to Category:Jazz saxophonists. There are already files directly in that category. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- solution per user:Auntof6--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't this category be named with the subject's actual name -- i.e., Rosamund Clifford? Auntof6 (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would say so, yes. A redirect could be kept though. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have no objection to keeping a redirect, but the Wikidata entry should point to the new name. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- both enwiki and Wikidata use the name Category:Rosamund Clifford--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have no objection to keeping a redirect, but the Wikidata entry should point to the new name. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Rosamund Clifford. -- Themightyquill (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
A certain user claims there is no concept as "Mountain dogs"; however there is a WP article for "Mountain dog". E4024 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- User:William Harris, other people, what do you think? --E4024 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, this purported type of dogs is not back up by any reliable sources, they are all w:Livestock guardian dogs. The only source available that addresses these dogs as some form of group says the words “mountain dog” are included in the English translation of some breed names of some Livestock guardian dog breeds.[1] Cavalryman (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC).
- What about all those WP articles like Perro de montaña, Cani da montagna, Mountain dog etc? Are we also going to delete all those WP articles? If categorization of the dogs (subcats and/or images) are wrong, then re-categorize them; but as long as there are articles about "mountain dog(s)" we should normally have a cat for that. (Do not think, please, that I do not understand you. BTW, do you understand me? :) E4024 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- None of the sources cited in Perro de montaña mention “mountain dogs” (and none would be considered reliable, secondary sources on enwiki), Cani da montagna cites no sources at all and Mountain dog states exactly what I have stated here. Yes I understand you, but I do not agree with you, just because something exists on one sister project does not mean it must exist on every sister project, particularly if there is no evidence to support its existence. There is no evidence of a classification of a related type of dogs called “mountain dogs”. Cavalryman (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC).
- Let's see if the cat-opener has something to say; if she does not object, I cannot at all, because I am a total ignorant on this topic. E4024 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the ping. The English Wikipedia article "Mountain dog" contains nothing more than a definition. In my opinion, that article should be deleted as WP:NOTDIC - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, the entry has a background and there exists a group of "not-well-informed" editors who wish to keep it, so for the time being it has to remain; a year from now may see a different proposition. William Harris (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have nothing else to say that the FCI recognizes a sub-category called "mountain dogs" (FCI group 2.2.2). However, as there are several other essential kennel federations, such as the AKC, that don't recognize this category, I don't mind if this category is deleted. Canarian (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Let's see if the cat-opener has something to say; if she does not object, I cannot at all, because I am a total ignorant on this topic. E4024 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- None of the sources cited in Perro de montaña mention “mountain dogs” (and none would be considered reliable, secondary sources on enwiki), Cani da montagna cites no sources at all and Mountain dog states exactly what I have stated here. Yes I understand you, but I do not agree with you, just because something exists on one sister project does not mean it must exist on every sister project, particularly if there is no evidence to support its existence. There is no evidence of a classification of a related type of dogs called “mountain dogs”. Cavalryman (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC).
References
- ↑ Hancock, David (2014) Dogs of the Shepherds: A Review of the Pastoral Breeds, Ramsbury, Wiltshire: Crowood Press, p. 31 ISBN: 978-1-84797-808-0. "Some are called shepherd dogs, others mountain dogs and a few dubbed ‘mastiffs’ ..."
Done: Deleted per above. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 04:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Tigris is a river. It has its own cats. The bridges on it have their own cats. What does "Tigris, Hasankeyf" mean? Arbitrary categorization. E4024 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps for the same purpose as Category:Danube in Budapest? - Themightyquill (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- seems that should be renamed per User:Themightyquill, hence - Category:Tigris in Hasankeyf Estopedist1 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Tigris in Hasankeyf. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Although not a native speaker, I guess "fishes" is not correct. Secondly, none of the three subcats are about "fishes". Shark is a mammal and the other two are human beings (all mammals). E4024 (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- move to Graffiti of fish conforming to other subcats of Category:Fish in art by medium.--RZuo (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- solution per User:RZuo Estopedist1 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
moved to Category:Graffiti of fish.--RZuo (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
None of the territories listed in the category are politically "occupied" by Bangladesh. All of them are part of India. There's no territorial dispute with Bangladesh since 2015. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-neutral name created by non-neutral user. I'll delete a lot of his/her contributions due to same reason. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
imho this metacat title should probably be "Films by actor". starring is not even a noun. RZuo (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that Category:Films by actor would be better, especially since we made Category:Actors gender neutral. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- This would widen the scope - starring can mean anything from having one of the main roles to being featured somewhat prominently in the credits. It certainly would not include not-so-well-known actors in bit parts. As the definition of starring is not very clear, I would prefer Category:Films by actor, but the subcategories would need to be renamed as well. The cat sorting should be changed, too, as it is now by first name instead of last name. @Joostik: was this category meant for all actors in a film or really only the starring ones? In the latter case, by which definition of starring? --rimshottalk 08:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- It hasn't been strictly enforced to this point, unless someone really thinks Buzz Aldrin's cameo in Transformers: Dark of the Moon was a starring role: Category:Films starring Buzz Aldrin. =) I'm not sure this whole category tree is useful on commons at all since we don't have many movie categories, but conversely, since we don't have many movie categories, it's unlikely to get out of hand. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- this cat tree is the way to go. the other direction (which creates a loop when both are present) is a joke like the "film locations by film" tree. the other direction is "XYZ movie cast members" Category:Cast members, which puts prolific actors in hundreds of cats.--RZuo (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- enwiki hasn't such solution. Category:Films by actor may be acceptable. Something similar is Category:Films by character Estopedist1 (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- +1 for Category:Films by actor. Category:Films by starrings is just nonsensical. Although maybe something like Category:Films by star would work, but I'm still going with Category:Films by actor since "star" isn't an actual thing and you can't really have Category:Films by starrings if "star" doesn't exist in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- this cat tree is the way to go. the other direction (which creates a loop when both are present) is a joke like the "film locations by film" tree. the other direction is "XYZ movie cast members" Category:Cast members, which puts prolific actors in hundreds of cats.--RZuo (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Films by actor. -- Themightyquill (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
What is the difference with Category:Sculptures depicting Satan? Are Satan and Devil two different concepts? E4024 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Since a parent category is Category:Devils in art, maybe this should be renamed to Category:Sculptures of devils. Whatever is done, other categories with "the Devil" in their names should have the same treatment. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a mess. We have a lot of examples of Commons:Overcat and just plain miscategorization here:
- Category:Devils
- Category:Satan
- Category:Devils in art
- Category:The Devil
- Category:Lucifer
- Category:Paintings of Lucifer (in Category:Paintings of angels but not in Category:Paintings of the Devil or Category:Paintings of devils)
- Category:Statues of Lucifer (in Category:Statues of angels and Category:Statues of demons in Christian art but not in Category:Sculptures of the Devil or Category:Statues of the Devil)
- Category:Satan
- Category:Devil as deceiver in art
- Category:Lucifer
- Additionally, whether any of these are (grand)parented by Category:Demons in art seems entirely random. Any thoughts on how to organize this better? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- The ideas of Satan, he devil, Iblis, Lucifer and many others is insanely complicated and complex, I honestly don't know what the best to do here is.*Treker (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- No changes. - nothing came of this discussion. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Does this category serve a purpose beyond "Organizations called institute" ? I'm wondering if that's a useful categorization at all, but if we're keeping it, we should make that explicit. I'm not sure there's any need to subdivide by focus since different "film institutes" might serve wholly different purposes (education, preservation, promotion, etc). Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- My guess is no. The same goes for Category:Institutions. Which is totally unnecessary and to vague as a category to be useful even if it wasn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep After some research I've found that institutes are someone unique entities from other organizations (for instance colleges/universities). So the best thing to do would be to better clarify the category instead of deleting it. Category:Institutions should still be dealt with somehow though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: But then you're saying the category is for anything with "institute" in its name, regardless of its actual meaning. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: Sure, but is there really that many (or any) things with the word "institute" in their names that aren't institutes? Perhaps there is in a non-English speaking non-Western place, but It's not like what constitutes an "institute" is an official, globally recognized thing anyway. Seriously, considering the definition for an institute is an "organizational body created for a certain purpose" literally anything can already go in the category anyway. So who really cares if it's an institute in name only? Technically all institutes are. Most of them share nothing else in common. Adamant1 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: But then you're saying the category is for anything with "institute" in its name, regardless of its actual meaning. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: If the category is for anything with "institute" in the name, the issue is with anything that supposedly is an institute (and categorized as such) but doesn't have institute in its name. Personally, I think a category with such a broad definition is pretty useless, but you suggested keeping, so I'm trying to figure out what to do with it. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: My suggestion was to keep the category so it could be better clarified, if there is no way to do that though then I'm fine with it being deleted. Obliviously once categories reach a certain level of higher level semantic abstraction they become pretty meaningless ways to organize things, and that could be the case here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- redirect institutes to organisations.
- institutions is an abstract term that refers to some sort of social systems, rather than any specific organisations. RZuo (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Merge Category:Institutions into Category:Organizations I suppose one could see an 'institution' as being the event in which an organization is established (the institution of the institution?), but this does not serve a significant purpose for Commons. Josh (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Merge Category:Institutes into Category:Organizations I have had a bit of a rethink and while I still think a distinction can be made, I am not sure that we should in Commons categories. The distinction is both subtle and subjective and while we could come up with a definition to slap on the categories, for the normal user, I doubt that it would help them much in getting to the content they are seeking. It would be far simpler and effective to merge these three. Josh (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Adamant1: clarify the category (and make clear criteria). For a word that is so widespread, we should look further. I think:
- Category:Institutes should be a subcategory of Category:Organizations by type; its subcategories should be categorized in a subcategory of Category:Organizations by subject
- The defition can be: "an organizational body created for a certain purpose", like education and/or research on specific topics. I think institutes facilitate those purposes, they are a kind of vehicle (like in "financing vehicle") for organizing certain activities and raising funds to be able to perform those activities.
- Criteria can also be:
- main purpose is to perform activities that are focused upon knowledge and documentation or other goal related to the welfare of humanity
non profit, not-for-profit- financed with subsidies, grants, gifts and/or payments for products (like reports) and services (like courses and commissioned research).
- They maybe:
- have the word "institute" in their names
- be a private initiative or set up by the government or other organization (this is not a distinctive criterium, just to let us know that the initiatiator can be anyone/any organization)
- are part of another organization, like a university.
- --JopkeB (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: Those are potential criteria, but they aren't based on any solid definition, just arbitrary ideas. Why should a for-profit educational institute like en:ITT Technical Institute be excluded? -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, User:Themightyquill, institues may also be for-profit (I did not know any, so I presume -wrongly- they only are non profit or not-for-profit). So we can drop that criterium.
- About the definition:
- The first part of my definition is from w:en:Institute. Other sources give similar definitions:
- Webster: "a society established for the promotion of learning, art, science, etc."
- Oxford dictionary: "an organization that has a particular purpose, especially one that is connected with education or a particular profession."
- Do you have a better one? I am OK with picking one of the others, most important is that there will be consensus and we can move forward.
- About the criteria:
- The criteria I suggest, are not "just arbitrary ideas"! I protest. They are suggestions I thought well about, they are proposals to discuss. So I hope we'll discuss here the content.
- Except for the profit criterium, do you agree with the other criteria I suggest? Do you know other/better criteria? What would you suggest?
- JopkeB (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, User:Themightyquill, institues may also be for-profit (I did not know any, so I presume -wrongly- they only are non profit or not-for-profit). So we can drop that criterium.
- @JopkeB: Those are potential criteria, but they aren't based on any solid definition, just arbitrary ideas. Why should a for-profit educational institute like en:ITT Technical Institute be excluded? -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: It wasn't meant as a criticism of your effort. I don't think there is a legitimate accepted definition of "institute" beyond "organization with a purpose" (much like the first/key part of the one offered by the oxford dictionary) which is broad enough to be useless. The second part of the oxford definition uses "especially" which means "not always." Various people might define it in a variety of different ways, so choosing one makes it arbitrary. If we are to keep this category, the only legitimate criteria I can think of is "Organizations called institute". -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I still think an institution is not just any organization (going from small foundations to big corporations). If you merge them with Category:Organizations they get lost in the big quantity of all kind of organizations and you lose information. For me "Organizations called institute" is good enough. In addition, we might say on Commons that at least one (or two) of the other criteria must apply:
- Created to perform activities that are focused upon knowledge (like education, research) and documentation, or other goal related to the welfare of humanity, and to facilitate those purpose.
- Financed with subsidies, grants, gifts and/or payments for products and services that are in line with the purpose.
- Is part of another organization, like a university.
- Would this be a solution? JopkeB (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- "Organizations called institute" = institutes, just like "Organizations called corporation" = corporations...
- those criteria are arbitrary. RZuo (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- So Rzuo, what would you suggest? Should Category:Institutes disappear or stay? And do you mean that when this category should disappear from Commons that then also Corporations and perhaps more subcategories of Organizations should disappear? JopkeB (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- "redirect institutes to organisations.--RZuo (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)" RZuo (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- So Rzuo, what would you suggest? Should Category:Institutes disappear or stay? And do you mean that when this category should disappear from Commons that then also Corporations and perhaps more subcategories of Organizations should disappear? JopkeB (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I still think an institution is not just any organization (going from small foundations to big corporations). If you merge them with Category:Organizations they get lost in the big quantity of all kind of organizations and you lose information. For me "Organizations called institute" is good enough. In addition, we might say on Commons that at least one (or two) of the other criteria must apply:
No consensus for Institutes, default to keep. The definition of the category should be clarified. Merge Institutions to Organizations. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
None of the territories listed in the category are officially "claimed" by Bangladesh. In fact, there's no territorial dispute with Bangladesh since 2015. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Could/should this be re-named to fit under Category:Former disputed territories? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- +1 for @Themightyquill: . This is not a geopolitical site, we can tolerate a "neuter" approximation. -- Blackcat
19:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- +1 for @Themightyquill: . This is not a geopolitical site, we can tolerate a "neuter" approximation. -- Blackcat
Deleted. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Could this be moved to Category:Shaker leaders since it's a child category of Category:Religious leaders from the United States and we have no Category:Notable people category? Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with that if the people are actually leaders. Otherwise they could just be merged up to the existing category. We shouldn't have any categories that specify "notable". --Auntof6 (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support. The nominated category is unacceptable Estopedist1 (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Technically they are referred to as Shaker elders, so I'm moving the category to Category:Shaker elders Relinus (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Shaker elders. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Müsste die Kategorie nicht "City wall of Nördlingen" es gibt ja eigentlich nur eine. Zimtstern 2k (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- We generally use (I mean in similar cases) "walls". --E4024 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Zimtstern 2k: Even if there is only one currently (?), there were surely more than one in the past and we may have images related to the previously existing ones. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep, we probably can close this CFD--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
User:Atamari recently created a large number of disambiguation categories containing the {{Disambig}} template but no disambiguating entries. I left a message on their talk page pointing out that entries are needed.
The user replied that entries are not needed because the links in the {{Disambig}} template are enough. They also said that putting entries on the page is "static," which I took to mean that when you put entries on a disambig category, it takes effort to keep that list up to date.
I replied that I see that point, but that these pages need the entries anyway. I hereby propose that the empty pages in question be deleted. (I will add the full list as soon as this CFD is created.)
I did consider populating these, but 1) a few that I spot-checked actually have only one entry among existing categories that would fit, and therefore don't need a disambiguation category, and 2) there are over 200 of them, a cleanup task that I am not prepared to take on at the moment.
Click below to see the list of categories included in this request.
- Category:AbuBakr-Moschee
- Category:Achenbachstraße
- Category:Ackerstraße
- Category:Adersstraße
- Category:Adler-Brauerei
- Category:Adlerstraße
- Category:Adolfstraße
- Category:Ahornstraße
- Category:Akazienstraße
- Category:Alarichstraße
- Category:Albert-Einstein-Straße
- Category:Albertstraße
- Category:Albrechtstraße
- Category:Alemannenstraße
- Category:Alexanderstraße
- Category:Allensteiner Straße
- Category:Alsenstraße
- Category:Alte Dorfstraße
- Category:Alte Freiheit
- Category:Alte Straße
- Category:Alte Synagoge
- Category:Altenberger Straße
- Category:Am Anger
- Category:Am Dornloh
- Category:Am Ehrenmal
- Category:Am Forsthof
- Category:Am Friedenshain
- Category:Am Hofe
- Category:Am Kalkofen
- Category:Am Kasinogarten
- Category:Am Nordpark
- Category:Am Sandfeld
- Category:Am Stall
- Category:Am Timpen
- Category:Am Walde
- Category:Am Werloh
- Category:Amalienstraße
- Category:Amselstraße
- Category:An der Bergbahn
- Category:An der Hütte
- Category:An der Kirche
- Category:An der Waldau
- Category:Andreas-Hofer-Straße
- Category:Anemonenstraße
- Category:Annenstraße
- Category:Arndtstraße
- Category:Arnoldstraße
- Category:Ascheweg
- Category:Askanierstraße
- Category:Asternstraße
- Category:Astilbenstraße
- Category:Augustastraße
- Category:August-Bebel-Straße
- Category:Badische Straße
- Category:Bahnstraße
- Category:Baldurstraße
- Category:Bandstraße
- Category:Bandwirkerstraße
- Category:Bankstraße
- Category:Bärenstraße
- Category:Barmer Straße
- Category:Bartholomäusstraße
- Category:Baumeisterstraße
- Category:Baumstraße
- Category:Bayreuther Straße
- Category:Beethovenstraße
- Category:Belle-Alliance-Straße
- Category:Bembergstraße
- Category:Benningsenstraße
- Category:Benrather Straße
- Category:Benzstraße
- Category:Berghauser Straße
- Category:Berglehne
- Category:Bergstraße
- Category:Berliner Platz
- Category:Bernhard-Letterhaus-Straße
- Category:Biberweg
- Category:Bildhauerstraße
- Category:Blankstraße
- Category:Bleicherstraße
- Category:Blumenstraße
- Category:Böcklinstraße
- Category:Bockmühle
- Category:Bocksledde
- Category:Boelckestraße
- Category:Boettingerweg
- Category:Bogenstraße
- Category:Bollwerk
- Category:Bolthausen
- Category:Borner Straße
- Category:Bozener Straße
- Category:Brahmsstraße
- Category:Brandenburgstraße
- Category:Brändströmstraße
- Category:Bredde
- Category:Breitenbruch
- Category:Bremer Straße
- Category:Breslauer Straße
- Category:Bromberger Straße
- Category:Bruch
- Category:Brüderstraße
- Category:Brunnenstraße
- Category:Buchenkopf
- Category:Buchenring
- Category:Buchenstraße
- Category:Bundesallee
- Category:Bürgerallee
- Category:Burgstraße
- Category:Burgunderstraße
- Category:Cäcilienstraße
- Category:Calvinstraße
- Category:Chlodwigstraße
- Category:Claudiusweg
- Category:Clausewitzstraße
- Category:Collenbuschstraße
- Category:Concordienstraße
- Category:Corneliusstraße
- Category:Cronenberger Straße
- Category:Dahler Straße
- Category:Dessauerstraße
- Category:Deutscher Ring
- Category:Deweerthstraße
- Category:Dickmannstraße
- Category:Dienstagstraße
- Category:Dieselstraße
- Category:Diesterwegstraße
- Category:Dietrich-Bonhoeffer-Weg
- Category:Domagkweg
- Category:Donarstraße
- Category:Dorfwiese
- Category:Döringstraße
- Category:Dornaper Straße
- Category:Dorotheenstraße
- Category:Dörpfeldstraße
- Category:Drosselstraße
- Category:Droste-Hülshoff-Straße
- Category:Druckerstraße
- Category:Dürrweg
- Category:Düsseldorfer Straße
- Category:Eddastraße
- Category:Edith-Stein-Straße
- Category:Eduardstraße
- Category:Ehrenberger Straße
- Category:Ehrenhainstraße
- Category:Eichenstraße
- Category:Eiland
- Category:Eintrachtstraße
- Category:Eisenlohrstraße
- Category:Eisenstraße
- Category:Ekkehardstraße
- Category:Elberfelder Straße
- Category:Elbersstraße
- Category:Elisabethstraße
- Category:Elisenstraße
- Category:Elsasser Straße
- Category:Else-Lasker-Schüler-Straße
- Category:Elsternstraße
- Category:Emilienstraße
- Category:Emilstraße
- Category:Emmichstraße
- Category:Engelsstraße
- Category:Erholungstraße
- Category:Erichstraße
- Category:Erkrather Straße
- Category:Erlenstraße
- Category:Ernststraße
- Category:Eschenstraße
- Category:Esmarchstraße
- Category:Espenstraße
- Category:Essener Straße
- Category:Etzelstraße
- Category:Eugen-Langen-Straße
- Category:Ewaldstraße
- Category:Eylauer Straße
- Category:Falkenweg
- Category:Färberstraße
- Category:Farbmühle
- Category:Fasanenweg
- Category:Feldstraße
- Category:Ferdinand-Schrey-Straße
- Category:Fichtenstraße
- Category:Finkenstraße
- Category:Fischertal
- Category:Flanhard
- Category:Flensburger Straße
- Category:Flieth
- Category:Florastraße
- Category:Florian-Geyer-Straße
- Category:Flotowstraße
- Category:Fouriersgasse
- Category:Frankenplatz
- Category:Frankfurter Straße
- Category:Franzenstraße
- Category:Freiheitstraße
- Category:Freiligrathstraße
- Category:Fresestraße
- Category:Freyastraße
- Category:Friedhofstraße
- Category:Friedrich-Engels-Allee
- Category:Friedrichschulstraße
- Category:Friedrich-Wilhelm-Straße
- Category:Frielinghausen
- Category:Fröbelstraße
- Category:Fuchsstraße
- Category:Fuhlrottstraße
- Category:Funckstraße
- Category:Fürstenstraße
- Category:Gambrinusstraße
- a) there is no obligation stated on the description page of the template that you have to provide links! No regulation described. Alone the first linking of the template is worth gold.
- b) A bad example can be seen under Category:Kirchstraße (coincidentally improved by Auntof6) A better view is contained by the link that provides the template at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Categories/Kirchstra%C3%9Fe.
- A whole 161 direct hits and another 332 indirect hits, not just the two listed. This can really only be done with a dynamic view. A static view of the possible hits to this template is impossible to implement correctly.
- c) The secondary purpose of the template is to "occupy" the space. So that nobody chooses a parenthesized category out of ignorance, although many parenthesized categories have already been prepared and written.
- --Atamari (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment The disambig description page says: Generally this template would be placed following the list of items to be disambiguated (at the end of the article page). So something (e.g. a link) should be given.- Second: In case of the title of this Cfd the first link at disambig page give more than hundred hits but only two of them fits the title Category:AbuBakr-Moschee - a bad example for using {{Disambig}} without further links. GeorgHH • talk 21:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- delete all: we don't do pre-emptively disambiguation pages with zero or one entry Estopedist1 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Done: category deleted per discussion. EDIT: I deleted most of the categories listed above, kept the ones that actually disambiguate or were useful. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Way too broad in scope. (Not to mention the vague name.) What is the point of a category, that would contain almost every animation? Who looks for "endless loops" to illustrate anything? I suggest to delete this. Watchduck (quack) 23:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- How about renaming it to "seamless loops"? The idea is to have a repository of animations that loop without breaking, which only a small subset of animations do. Yitzilitt (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- I should also mention that as an artist, I often find myself specifically looking for loops with no clear breaks in them, which can be harder to find than you might think. For me at least, such a category would be practically useful. Yitzilitt (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- How Yitzilitt describes it is how I interpreted the name as well. Renaming it to "Seamless loops" makes a lot of sense. It's a useful collection, but this whole category tree needs some explanation descriptions who editors can more appropriately categorise into them. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see any problems. Of course we can create subcategories for more detailed explanations, but it is what it is for me. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Yitzilitt: If separating animations with and without breaks is relevant, fine. But when a category (Animations) is split in two halves, there is still the question, which of the two halves should become the subcategory. (It is not usual to create both foo things and non-foo things.) The obvious answer should be, that the smaller of the two halves should become the category. And as far as I see, being seamless is the usual case for animations - not the exception. If that is the case, the category should be animations with breaks. To find those without breaks, one has to exclude those with breaks. The problem that Commons does not offer a good way to do that, should be addressed rather than papered over. (Maybe there is a way to do it in Deepcat. See example Animations of geometry.)
- It is not realistic, that this category will ever contain even a tenth of all seamless animations. If you want to collect some of them, you should turn this into a gallery. Watchduck (quack) 13:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Watchduck, perhaps I'm missing something here, but when did this change from the name/scope of this category and into a discussion of Animations in general? I'm also concerned that you're misunderstanding the scope of this particular category (if I'm wrong, I do apologise), which is to collect seamless looping animations like this one, rather than just simple looping gifs like this one. I agree that the current name of the category is problematic, but its contents are of a specific nature that warrants categorisation. Using the argument that a gallery would be better here because it's incomplete is nonsense; by that logic most of the more abstract categories should be converted. Galleries are intended as a showcase of a particular topic, not as the whole collection of a particular topic (which is, of course, the purpose of categories). — Huntster (t @ c) 14:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Huntster here, there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding as to the purpose of this category (which is itself strong evidence it should be renamed imo). I would also be fine with creating more detailed subcategories for this page if it becomes overcrowded, but the fact that subcategories can be created isn't a strong argument for the deletion of the larger category—otherwise we would never be able to effectively organize anything here! Yitzilitt (talk)
- @Huntster: I dont' think we have a misunderstanding here. We may have different assumptions, what kind of animation is more common. (Makes sense, because no one of us has counted them all.) My impression is, that film sequence like animations like this, this or this are the minority, while most animations show some kind of rotation - like this, this or this. We agree, that the distinction deserves to be reflected in the category system. My argument is, that it might be better to sort the smaller set of images in its own category. -Watchduck (quack) 13:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I just realize, that there are at least four kinds of seamless animations:
| rotating objects (otherwise unchanged) |
|
| periodic movements based on rotations |
|
| periodic movements |
|
| back and forth |
|
| Droste effect self-similarity |
|
I think that these would be relevant subcategories, so I rest my case for deleting this category.
I agree that Seamless animations would be a decent name. -Watchduck (quack) 15:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nice analysis. I worry that too many subcategories will result in the same image being tossed in several of them, but this is a minor concern. I kind of think the two "Periodic movements" rows would most appropriately be combined for simplicity's sake, as that first row has far more in common with other periodic movement images than with rotational items, and tangenting them into a sub-sub category seems excessive. I'd like to give more thought to the overall structure of this category family when I have more time.... — Huntster (t @ c) 19:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think periodic movements based on rotations should be a subcategory of periodic movements and of rotations. And the other subcategory of rotations would be rotating objects (where the object does not change apart from the rotation). I am in no hurry either. --Watchduck (quack) 21:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- moved category based on apparent consensus, hope that's okay. Yitz (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wonderful analysis! I would love a recategorization along those lines. By the way a worthwhile characteristic (orthogonal IMO) is Category:Looped_animations where they are real-life videos that have been carefully looped. --Nanite (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Can we remove {{Category for discussion}}? Pere prlpz (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Consensus was reached. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)